About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
at each other. there was press attention in the mccain campaign and-john mccain was being. we did a survey and 60% or less of the more negative. we said the obama people were more negative than mccain. he had so much money he to run negative ads as well as the positive ads. the candidates worried that they will be seen as too negative. they have a reputational risk at stake and there as. the super pak ads do not have the same risk. they and 99.9%-. negative. after the election, that is something i think we need to think about as an effect of this new kind -- campaign finance world is that the message the american people are getting -- >> another interest against anonymity -- it seems relatively small in comparison with the other issues. if you'll let one person to anonymously sully the debate in a significant way, there is a cost. >> if there is a widespread perception mitt romney does not have influence over what the super back contained, he will be expected to stand up and defend it. >> mitt romney said he did not see those ads. goshm, gewe - there are clear cases where candidates have c
't cause autism. hillary clinton said the same thing and so did john mccain. all three made the connection between thimerosol with a trace of mercury in it. that's been debunked. >> again, you're talking about dabbling in some theories, and completely grant you that it's troubling when you talk about people on the left that pushed this idea of a vaccine/autism link. that's troubling and needs to be called out. when you talk about as a party, mitt romney's in his acceptance speech at republican convention mocked the idea of combating climate change. he talked about obama promising to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. he mocked it, and it was a huge applause line. you have a republican party platform using scare quotes to talk about climate change. you have republicans in major positions of influence in the congress saying it's a complete hoax. that's totally out of whack with the kind of hostility of science you see overall on the left. >> so my response to that would be that, see, you're focusing more on the republican party and the democratic party, and that's not the point
the primary and even a little bit toward john mccain and didn't need to. i saw this election season he can't run on his record would be full of claims of -a-imaginary racism. and ultimately the point of the book is don't fall for it again, america. >> one of the policies that came out of the 1970's is affirmative action. it's going to be reviewed again by the supreme court in another week and a half or so. so what are your views about the effectiveness of -- or lack thereof of affirmative action? >> my law firm, center for individual rights, brought the case against my alma mater. university of michigan law school. we won the law school case. we lost the undergrad case. and i think at this point, it is -- and there have been more recent studies about how it is a disaster for black people. but mostly i think it's a disaster for america. at this point, i will say, -- >> why? >> you get past discrimination by not discriminating on the basis of race. that's the way to do it. i will say one of the things that conservatives have generally not liked about richard nixon was of course he was the fi
. he brings it up. he did ghetto with hillary clinn the primary and even with john mccain. this election, he cannot run on his record. it was full of claims of imaginary racism, so ultimately the point of the book is, do not fall for it again, america. host: one of the policy that cannot the 1970's is affirmative action. it will be reviewed again by the supreme court in another week and a half. what are your views about the effectiveness, or lack there of of affirmative-action? guest: my law firm brought the case against my alma mater. we won the law school case, we lost the and the grant case. at this point, -- there have been more recent studies about how it is a disaster for black people, but mostly it disaster for america, at this point. by not discriminate on the basis of race. is the way to do it. one of the things that conservatives have generally not like about richard nixon was and he was the first one to impose racial quotas, time lines on the construction industry that was doing business with the government. people of my generation and blogger up in a world with
bit towards. >> john:. he didn't need to -- -- towards john mccain, and he didn't need to. and so ultimately the point of the book is don't fall for it again, america. >> one of the policies that came out of the 1970's is affirmative action. it'll be reviewed again by the supreme court in just another week and a half or so. so what are your views about the effectiveness or lack thereof of affirmative action? >> well, um, my lawfirm, center for individual rights, brought the case against my alma mater, university of michigan law school. we won the law school case. we lost the undergrad case. and i think at this point, it is -- and there's been more recent studies about how it is a disaster for black people, but mostly i think it's a disaster for america at this point. i will say that -- >> why? >> i think you erase discrimination but not discriminating on the basis of race. that's the way you do it. but i will say, one of the things conservatives have generally not liked about richard nixon is, of course, he was the first one to impose racial quotas, time lines on the construction
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)